Ugh. Assange will not get a fair day in court because the espionage act does not allow that. The trial is for the defense only and the results are pretty much already determined. Acosta ties Assange being prosecuted to Russia even though he wasn't charged with anything to do with the Mueller debacle. But that is why he was constantly tied to Russia wasn't it? And the rape charges even though he was free to leave Sweden at the beginning of the case. But the people who believe in Russia Gate have their minds made up and will not look at facts objectively. Period. I am seeing this with the impeachment farce. People took the democrats at their word about Trump's guilt, but now that the defense has their turn they are saying that everything is debunked conspiracy theory. Including the fact that Ukraine did help Hillary during the election. Here's the proof:
I have a better article if anyone is interested in this, but I don't have access to it. But Schiff keeps saying that everything about Ukraine helping Hillary and Biden's corruption has been debunked. Except that there are plenty of articles written back in 2015 and onwards that show something else entirely.
Hopefully the pressure people are making against the UK government on Assange's treatment will grow legs and he will be released from Gitmo, UK and he can get medical help as is his right.
"Obviously journalists shouldn't be prosecuted for what they write, BUT....."
No Buts about it JIM! Grrr..... raised my BP this morning. Glad Jimmy and crew went after him for it.
Matt Orfalea is a good film maker. Thanks for the clip.
Ugh. Assange will not get a fair day in court because the espionage act does not allow that. The trial is for the defense only and the results are pretty much already determined. Acosta ties Assange being prosecuted to Russia even though he wasn't charged with anything to do with the Mueller debacle. But that is why he was constantly tied to Russia wasn't it? And the rape charges even though he was free to leave Sweden at the beginning of the case. But the people who believe in Russia Gate have their minds made up and will not look at facts objectively. Period. I am seeing this with the impeachment farce. People took the democrats at their word about Trump's guilt, but now that the defense has their turn they are saying that everything is debunked conspiracy theory. Including the fact that Ukraine did help Hillary during the election. Here's the proof:
I have a better article if anyone is interested in this, but I don't have access to it. But Schiff keeps saying that everything about Ukraine helping Hillary and Biden's corruption has been debunked. Except that there are plenty of articles written back in 2015 and onwards that show something else entirely.
Hopefully the pressure people are making against the UK government on Assange's treatment will grow legs and he will be released from Gitmo, UK and he can get medical help as is his right.
"Obviously journalists shouldn't be prosecuted for what they write, BUT....."
No Buts about it JIM! Grrr..... raised my BP this morning. Glad Jimmy and crew went after him for it.
up
4 users have voted.
—
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
. . . in Iowa caucus sites where she winds up short of 15%?
To what alternate candidate will her supporters be steered by Warren's local organizers?
Snoop, any chance you can snoop this out??? It's gotta be out there somewhere by now.
It looks like Bernie's running away with the state polling percentage at around 30% (and probably more given obvious corporate polling flaws that weigh against Bernie) but there's a good chance lots of Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar etc supporters will choose Biden as their second choice when their candidate fails to register 15% of the initial tally.
The phrase may have been first popularized by Michael Harrington's 1962 book The Other America in which Harrington cited Charles Abrams, a well-known authority on housing.
Andrew Young has been cited for calling the United States system “socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor”, and Martin Luther King, Jr. frequently used this wording in his speeches. Since at least 1969, Gore Vidal used the expression “free enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich” to describe the U.S. economic policies, and he used it from the 1980s in his critiques of Reaganomics.
In winter 2006/2007, in response to criticism about oil imports from Venezuela, that country being under the leadership of Hugo Chávez, the founder and president of Citizens Energy Corporation Joseph P. Kennedy II countered with a critique of the U.S. system which he characterized as “a kind of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor that leaves the most vulnerable out in the cold”. Also Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has become known for expressing to large audiences that the United States is now a land of “socialism for the rich and brutal capitalism for the poor”.
The phrase may have been first popularized by Michael Harrington's 1962 book The Other America in which Harrington cited Charles Abrams, a well-known authority on housing.
Andrew Young has been cited for calling the United States system “socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor”, and Martin Luther King, Jr. frequently used this wording in his speeches. Since at least 1969, Gore Vidal used the expression “free enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich” to describe the U.S. economic policies, and he used it from the 1980s in his critiques of Reaganomics.
In winter 2006/2007, in response to criticism about oil imports from Venezuela, that country being under the leadership of Hugo Chávez, the founder and president of Citizens Energy Corporation Joseph P. Kennedy II countered with a critique of the U.S. system which he characterized as “a kind of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor that leaves the most vulnerable out in the cold”. Also Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has become known for expressing to large audiences that the United States is now a land of “socialism for the rich and brutal capitalism for the poor”.
up
1 user has voted.
—
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
at lots of caucus sites in Iowa. Those voters will then have to go to join with their second choice, swelling Biden or Bernie's ranks (or the ranks of other candidates).
Is Warren just going to have her captains in those caucus sites keep quiet and allow her supporters to do what they think best without any guidance? Or is Warren going to issue instructions to those captains to influence her voters towards supporting Biden or Bernie or whomever?
My guess is that the caucus sites are going to be pretty chaotic with lots of candidates unable to meet the 15% threshold.
The new rules for caucuses are sort of like ranked voting. In a primary ballot state, if you vote for say Tulsi and she gets less than 15% of the votes, those votes are distributed proportionately to candidates who get over 15%, although I'm unclear as to the specifics how the formula actually works.
@Wally
If they are actual progressives they will likely move to the Sanders camp. However if they are faux progressives (ie hilbots) they will quickly head over to "anyone but Bernie" candidates that are still around.
at lots of caucus sites in Iowa. Those voters will then have to go to join with their second choice, swelling Biden or Bernie's ranks (or the ranks of other candidates).
Is Warren just going to have her captains in those caucus sites keep quiet and allow her supporters to do what they think best without any guidance? Or is Warren going to issue instructions to those captains to influence her voters towards supporting Biden or Bernie or whomever?
My guess is that the caucus sites are going to be pretty chaotic with lots of candidates unable to meet the 15% threshold.
The new rules for caucuses are sort of like ranked voting. In a primary ballot state, if you vote for say Tulsi and she gets less than 15% of the votes, those votes are distributed proportionately to candidates who get over 15%, although I'm unclear as to the specifics how the formula actually works.
And I don't think she's a real progressive but rather an opportunist.
Keep your eyes and ears open.
Know any Bernie caucus captains in Iowa? They should really keep alert and observe what Warren's captains are telling supporters when they learn they are under 15%. And video it!!!!
#4.1.1 If they are actual progressives they will likely move to the Sanders camp. However if they are faux progressives (ie hilbots) they will quickly head over to "anyone but Bernie" candidates that are still around.
Comments
Powerful
Thank you for sharing that
Orf film featured on Jimmy too
Matt Orfalea is a good film maker. Thanks for the clip.
Here he is trying to get empty suit Acosta to support Julian along with commentary by Jimmy and the gang. (28 min)
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HXER8vKo5Q]
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Thanks for posting the video
Ugh. Assange will not get a fair day in court because the espionage act does not allow that. The trial is for the defense only and the results are pretty much already determined. Acosta ties Assange being prosecuted to Russia even though he wasn't charged with anything to do with the Mueller debacle. But that is why he was constantly tied to Russia wasn't it? And the rape charges even though he was free to leave Sweden at the beginning of the case. But the people who believe in Russia Gate have their minds made up and will not look at facts objectively. Period. I am seeing this with the impeachment farce. People took the democrats at their word about Trump's guilt, but now that the defense has their turn they are saying that everything is debunked conspiracy theory. Including the fact that Ukraine did help Hillary during the election. Here's the proof:
Ukraine's leaders campaign against pro Putin Trump
I have a better article if anyone is interested in this, but I don't have access to it. But Schiff keeps saying that everything about Ukraine helping Hillary and Biden's corruption has been debunked. Except that there are plenty of articles written back in 2015 and onwards that show something else entirely.
Hopefully the pressure people are making against the UK government on Assange's treatment will grow legs and he will be released from Gitmo, UK and he can get medical help as is his right.
"Obviously journalists shouldn't be prosecuted for what they write, BUT....."
No Buts about it JIM! Grrr..... raised my BP this morning. Glad Jimmy and crew went after him for it.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
..and it was at the Newseum
Russiagate, Ukrainegate, Julian, Chelsea, Venezuela, Brazil, Iran, and on and on. Same deceit....with the "...gates" designed to distract.
Pretty amazing.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
What are Warren caucus captains being instructed to do?
. . . in Iowa caucus sites where she winds up short of 15%?
To what alternate candidate will her supporters be steered by Warren's local organizers?
Snoop, any chance you can snoop this out??? It's gotta be out there somewhere by now.
It looks like Bernie's running away with the state polling percentage at around 30% (and probably more given obvious corporate polling flaws that weigh against Bernie) but there's a good chance lots of Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar etc supporters will choose Biden as their second choice when their candidate fails to register 15% of the initial tally.
Those caucuses are going to be very chaotic.
"Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor"
I've heard Bernie employ that old MLK and others quote once recently. I hope he will repeat it over and over and over.
I'm wondering why the second part of the quote was editted out of the video.
From Wikipedia:
Might be cuz of fair use
this was mentioned at the end of the video. As to your question I don't understand it. Migth be me tho...
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
I imagine Warren realizes she's not going to get 15%
at lots of caucus sites in Iowa. Those voters will then have to go to join with their second choice, swelling Biden or Bernie's ranks (or the ranks of other candidates).
Is Warren just going to have her captains in those caucus sites keep quiet and allow her supporters to do what they think best without any guidance? Or is Warren going to issue instructions to those captains to influence her voters towards supporting Biden or Bernie or whomever?
My guess is that the caucus sites are going to be pretty chaotic with lots of candidates unable to meet the 15% threshold.
The new rules for caucuses are sort of like ranked voting. In a primary ballot state, if you vote for say Tulsi and she gets less than 15% of the votes, those votes are distributed proportionately to candidates who get over 15%, although I'm unclear as to the specifics how the formula actually works.
I think that it depends on the makeup of the warren supporters.
If they are actual progressives they will likely move to the Sanders camp. However if they are faux progressives (ie hilbots) they will quickly head over to "anyone but Bernie" candidates that are still around.
But I think most will do Warren's bidding
And I don't think she's a real progressive but rather an opportunist.
Keep your eyes and ears open.
Know any Bernie caucus captains in Iowa? They should really keep alert and observe what Warren's captains are telling supporters when they learn they are under 15%. And video it!!!!